I can modify or supplement more rules if you want, otherwise, we can start whenever's convenient to you. This topic is definitely something of worth to me, since my views are getting nuanced, especially on gender issues.

Just another note though, I have spring semester starting tomorrow, and so I might be busy and Imight delay my responses but rest assured, I will get on time. Just don't expect quick responses.

As we contemplate the reason for our existence, eventually, one way or another, we'll come across gender as part of our self-reflection process. We ask ourselves the biggest question of the day, "Why women?" and "Why not men?" and of course sometimes we receive the usual "Suck it up whether you like it or not" responses. Do these questions then, warrant a change in the social sphere? Why is it so necessary to cater to those oppressed?

The Whole Women

The concept of defining women is often subjected to absurd premises. Numerous cases, women are still simplified by their ovaries, by the amount of 'cleavage' that they possess, and are usually subjected to the usual train of misogynistic thought "You're like this because you're a women". Simone Beauvoir perfectly captures this exact plight accurately in her book "The Second Sex"(1):

"Humanity is male, and man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being." ~Simone Beauvoir

The concept of the second sex still exists to this day. Institutionalized discrimination on a political scale may not exist, but the social stigma are still widely accepted and normalized throughout society, particular in the US. The purpose of feminism is to combat this stigma, with the same amount of fire if needed. If the language of civil debates isn't possible within these misogynistic individuals, feminists deserve every right to respond with the same amount of tenacity.

Criticism directed at this premise usually involves something alone the line of "This is more of an emotional tirade than a rational discussion". The criticism is correct but in no way does it disprove feminist theories. The public sphere is often irrational, more so if it includes social norms, which is unquantifiable by nature. If the tone of discussion are unable to accept academic ways of discoursing, then neither group should sought the means to engage in it, rather, they should engage in whatever that is best for them. If attacking social norms require passion that vibrates by the string, then so be it, as long as the messages are conveyed successfully within the social sphere.

One may ask "What's the point if both of them will simply reside in their own ignorance?". This sort of sweeping criticism, again, fails to address the issue. The point of controlling public opinion is to sway it by persuasion, and not by rational discussion, since people are more attuned to emotional passion, rather than a rational viewpoint. Jeremy Waldon, in his book "The Harm In Hate Speech" said "It was at the mercy of public opinion, and public opinion was looking well-nigh ungovernable"(2) in relation to society and power structures within it. He is correct, public opinion is ungovernable and almost impossible to influence unless one engage in the occasional persuasive rhetoric.

If feminist desire equality, they have to overcome this obstacle first and the only way to do so, is to influence and engage in a speech that the general public accepts. It is as Simone puts it "Women discovers herself as the inessential and never turns into the essential, it is because she does not bring about this transformation herself." The transformation requires an emotional value which will then sway public opinion that translates into change for society.

The premises surrounding feminism are justified, it is a net benefit to society as a whole. The means to achieve equality may not be rational, but if the final product results in equality, then there is no reason to suppress it.

Sources:

(1) The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir (2) The Harm In Hate Speech, Jeremy Waldon

=====

I apologize for the short argument but I can't argue more than what I've said, I'm managing so many things at once. I have spring semester to handle, housing and classes to finalize. Sorry again. That is all for now.

The floor is yours, con, I pray that this may engulf into a flamewar. Good Luck.

I understand that Con is source bombing, but please note that his intention were just to give me something to go on. Waive any source bombing penalties that you might think of. Although, It is also important to note that I am under NO OBLIGATION to respond and refute every single 'Personal MRA Life Experience' that he referenced to, since this was essentially a source bomb. I'm doing this just to spark the last round, since he has given me nothing to go on at this point.

That said, let's continue arguing, I'm bored with technicalities.

Video: MGTOW GENERATION - Young Men Are Giving Up On Women

The video is filled with unappealing rhetoric, intended to exemplify suffering from a 'Man's perspective'. It is a complete reversal of liberal feminism, which uses the same "Please lift me in terms of status" argument. The video purposely said that it's intention was to refute radical feminism, however that is untrue. Radical Feminism is a minority which falls under a movement intended to abolish the social status of gender, not put it on a pedestal wheel.

Moreover, It falls under what Simone have called the divide between one from the other(1). By making man as the sole perception of life, you are essentially dividing yourself from other groups. I understand the appeal of Non-conformity, but to be utterly selfish and self promote one's gender without any consideration of other social groups is absurd. Not only does it promote misinformation, but it promotes an apathetic, cynical environment which is highly destructive to societal cohesion. Individuals have an obligation to promote social cohesion, not denounce it by digging one's self into a rabbit hole and expect sympathy from the general public.

This is filled with an enormous amount of emotional appeal that is completely irrational. The video also moves and talks like a conspiracy UFO theorist, filled with adequate amount of emotional suspense intended to arouse uninformed audience. She makes the point about having received "supposed assaults" from liberal feminists and blabs on for a significant amount of time to make the audience appeal more towards her view.

The only valid point she makes is Suicide rates, which is higher among men than it is among women. It does not, indicate the source of the suicide, however hard she tries to blame it on liberal feminism. The rest are a cluster disproportion of arguments. First of all, Women are raped more than men. they are more objectified than men. It is an intrinsic drive of men to have sex whenever he walks and moves along the earth's atmosphere. Objectification of men doesn't necessarily end in a negative light, as I'm sure they very much prefer to be objectified. Stroking men's ego is the easiest way to win his heart, especially when it comes to the the amount of 'cleavage' they possess, especially down there, right when they're measuring how long it is while contemplating what to do when the time comes.

I am in under no position to argue beyond a personal viewpoint, since what she's essentially doing, is the EXACT same thing, by riling one's personal experience and expect it to be socially valid and representative. If personal experiences are valid, then I can use mine to counter hers.

3rd Video:Feminism vs. Truth

Again with the rhetoric. This is the problem with youtube sources, especially if one doesn't have proper information over the issue. It does not help, whatsoever to reassert and restate how you're smarter than professors in women's studies, nor does it help to reassert a blanket and useless statement such as "Women are doing better than men in most cases".

She criticized the wage gap as being non-existent, when most feminist have clarified that the wage issue isn't a sweeping statement that applies everywhere, but rather, it applies on an individual case. Domestic chores, sleep deprivation and nurturing schedules all contribute whether or not a certain family has a wage gap. This has been proven time and time again by Radical Feminist Philosophers.

In conclusion, the arguments she provided are grossly misinformed and tends to rely too much on generalizing social issues. Sociological studies, require in-depth measurements to prove themselves as valid since there's simply no way to quantify social norms. There is no way Con can prove this video as valid argument, since the issue is non-existent in the first place.

4th Video:PROFESSIONAL VICTIM TACTICS (Guest video by Vernaculis)

And how does real life examples, such as social status issues of manspreading(or shebagging) address inequality? How does complimenting one party and completely dividing the other as 'infamously ignorant' helps? The video clearly perpetuates everything that is wrong with society, simply being the obvious lack of social cohesion and the lack of tolerance.

Disproving a sensitive issue requires one to have valid arguments, not backtrack themselves to an emotional appeal.

Conclusion

I thank Con for presenting me with those videos. It informed me on what appeals to the popular audience and what triggers them, which I'm usually unaware of in most cases. Good luck and I trust my opponent to have a civil response.

@LostInTheEcho1498
I appreciate the time you took in typing all of that, thanks for making room for this debate. I hope it wasn't an inconvenience.

@CoolDudeBro

Not really, I still use Plato to refute my astronomy professors who's often hellbent on denouncing things that are unobservable, that sh!t can get you robotic and boring if you think life is about empirical meanings. In the same way, we can use Simone to explain why conflicts between social groups happen. She predicted that neither side will work for a compromise, and her prediction is entirely correct. Liberal Feminism, as well as the whole branch of MRA and its sub-cultures are still unwilling to work for a compromise. I've already demonstrated how Thunderfoot and MGTOW icons such as Joseph Watson were unwilling to concede ground.

"Men are scared to marry" "Men are afraid to date" really? These are the sort of reasons that they can come up with? A complete reversal of liberal feminism? . Thsue with social status is that everyone expects you to conform, and this is essentially the root of the problem, you are expecting others to conform to your worthless ideas. Anything outside is usually unworthy of discussion.

If these are the sort that seek to defend my rights, then I'm not interested. These advocates will only complicate the issue, rather than solve it.

Reasons for voting decision: First of all, shout out to Cooldudebro, one of the first guys I debated like a year and a half ago. Nice to see you still around here. Next, I'll give this to Pro for three reasons. First, many of the well developed points by Pro remain not having been refuted by Con. Second, Con does several things that would lose conduct, such as a forfeit round and the plopping down of 20 sources in an attempt to use these as an argument. I understand Pro said to ignore these things in the conduct perspective, but using sources as an argument is simply invalid. If this were acceptable, debate.org would just be people putting down sources. Third, Pro overall presents a stronger argument for his position, so I give this to Pro.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.